Читать книгу Critical Incidents in Counselor Education - Группа авторов - Страница 49

Linwood G. Vereen, Clewiston D. Challenger, and Nicole R. Hill

Counselor educators are tasked with preparing professional counselors who must approach their work with a high level of competence. Professional competence emerges from the cultivation of professional dispositions, clinical and ethical skills, depth of knowledge of professional constructs, and professional identity (Miller et al., 2020; Spurgeon, Gibbons, & Cochran, 2012). This case highlights dialectics between dispositions and clinical skill development and between assessment and growth commitment many counselor educators encounter. As Professor X works with students in the counseling skills course, she must promote skill development, boundary setting, and ethical competence while also evaluating dispositions and skill proficiencies.

The author identified critical standards from the ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2014), specifically relating to confidentiality and privacy, nonma-leficence, supervisory responsibilities, and assessment and remediation by counselor educators. It is important that Professor X ground herself in department and professional policy, ethical standards, and accreditation mandates regarding students who exhibit signs of impairment. It is imperative that Professor X follow policies and procedures as stipulated in student handbooks and program communications.

Professor X needs to balance the potential disability rights of the student with a consideration of counselor impairment as outlined in the ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2014). Impairment would impede Jessie’s ability to provide competent care for clients, necessitating that her instructor and program work with her to address concerns that would hinder her ability to focus on the needs of the client. Furthermore, the 2016 Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) Standards (CACREP, 2016) discuss the importance of departmental policies regarding student review, remediation, or dismissal from a program for nonacademic reasons. If the department does not yet have a robust and formal policy for nonacademic gatekeeping, Professor X could actively advocate for the adoption of a process that is comprehensive, transparent, and grounded in the literature on professional dispositions (Miller et al., 2020; Spurgeon, Gibbons, & Cochran, 2012).

As Professor X raises concerns with Jessie, she needs to be clear and direct on programmatic expectations and policies. This provides a foundational extension of the case. This process is vital and important for fostering student development. Informing Jessie about the focus of the meeting and the reason for the concerns is critical. Transparency is a vital part of the learning process, and each student has the right to know the reason for any scheduled meeting in advance. It is important that Professor X inform Jessie that she has engaged in a pattern of sharing too much detailed personal information about past trauma that is beyond the scope of the practice activity. Jessie should be reminded about the initial class experience in which she was provided with information and pointed toward resources to assist her in seeking help outside the classroom. Professor X needs to document all concerns and identify next steps and share this information with Jessie verbally and in writing.

Because of the critical role program faculty play in gatekeeping, Professor X could also be very transparent in informing Jessie that her progress will be discussed at the next faculty meeting. Jessie needs to know that she could be placed on a Professional Progression Plan if she does not respond to feedback. If Professor X’s department does not already have a gatekeeping policy, it is recommended that it establish a systematic structure for articulating professional competencies that need to be met and evidence of how this will be accomplished in an identified time frame. The Professional Progression Plan needs to include a set of guiding developmental principles and dispositions each student in the program can be expected to adhere to (principles) and possess (dispositions). As part of this process, the faculty could provide Jessie with a copy of the ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2014) with sections on student impairment (Standard F.5.b.) and addressing personal concerns (Standard F.8.d.) highlighted for her review. Jessie could also be provided with an opportunity to clearly articulate her understanding of the current dilemma and how she will be expected to exhibit a different pattern of behaviors in the classroom.

• • •